For more than 40 years, Reading Research Quarterly has been essential reading for those committed to scholarship on literacy among learners of all ages. The leading research journal in the field, each issue of RRQ includes
RRQ is published online and in print four times a year: January, April, July, and October.
Reading Research Quarterly
The study of second-language (L2) reading comprehension and instruction has become the focus of increasing attention in the past few decades. Two recent publications, Reading in a Second Language: Moving From Theory to Practice by William Grabe and Second Language Reading Research and Instruction: Crossing the Boundaries edited by ZhaoHong Han and Neil J. Anderson, have each explored and provided up-to-date analyses of current theory and research in L2 reading and their implications for reading pedagogy. Grabe has provided a detailed examination of the various processes involved in L2 reading and their implications for effective classroom instruction. Han and Anderson have addressed the issue of L2 reading research and pedagogy by putting together a useful collection of essays, each exploring a specific aspect of L2 reading. This article reviews the two books and evaluates their theoretical, empirical, and practical insights.
Abstract from Nassaji, H. (2011, April/May/June). Issues in Second-Language Reading: Implications for Acquisition and Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2), 173–184. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.46.2.5
Reading Research Quarterly
ARTICLES FEATURED IN THIS ISSUE INCLUDE:
Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction: A Comparison of Instruction for Strategies and Content Approaches
Reports from research and the larger educational community demonstrate that too many students have limited ability to comprehend texts. The research reported here involved a two-year study in which standardized comprehension instruction for representations of two major approaches was designed and implemented. The effectiveness of the two experimental comprehension instructional conditions (Content and Strategies) and a control condition were compared. Content instruction focused student attention on the content of the text through open, meaning-based questions about the text. In strategies instruction, students were taught specific procedures to guide their access to text during reading of the text. Lessons for the control approach were developed using questions available in the Teacher 's Edition of the basal reading program used in the participating classrooms. Student participants were all fifth graders in a low-performing urban district. In addition to assessments of comprehension of lesson texts and an analysis of lesson discourse, three assessments were developed to compare student ability to transfer knowledge gained. The results were consistent from Year 1 to Year 2. No differences were seen on one measure of lesson text comprehension, the sentence verification technique (SVT). However, for narrative recall and expository learning probes, Content students outperformed Strategies students, and occasionally, the Basal control students outperformed Strategies students. For one of the transfer assessments, there was a modest effect in favor of the Content students. Transcripts of the lessons were examined and differences in amount of talk about the text and length of student response also favored the Content condition.
[Note: Margaret McKeown discusses the research presented in this article in a podcast presented by the “Voice of Literacy”: http://www.voiceofliteracy.org/posts/34422.]
Abstract from McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., & Blake, R.K. (2009, July/August/September). Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction: A Comparison of Instruction for Strategies and Content Approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1